@lewm : Strain gauge needs correction too. Its amplitude developed curve does not coincide exactly with the RIAA one. Anyway, if he does not shares his idea how we can comment about or better yet: how can we learn on it ? Problem with LP is the tracking distortion developed by the stylus tip surface friction during playback. .
R. |
@richardkrebs : " How much stylus misalignment and hence distortion, stylus drag causes, " In any kind of tonearm/cartridge always exist the stylus friction distortion during playback. At microscopic levels the stylus tip even has several small " jumps " due to that friction that’s is different along all the grooved LP surface depending the recording velocities in different surface positions. Here losted information that can’t pick-up and that’s part of the LP analog imperfections. That theoretical misalignment you mentioned is different for each LP track sides and we can’t use it as a reference. There are so many individual characteristics and parameters inside what we are discussing that for me the best I can do is to go with facts/measures that can gives me the best certainty ( that in any way is perfect but in theory helps to reach my targets ) and is what I did and do. Each one " imagination " and knowledge levels could take this dialogue to an endless finish line. R. |
Sorry again, this was my first post to Richard about that I deleted:
@richardkrebs : " AS is set by the user at a constant magnitude.." Normally the tonearms designers design the AS mechanism to be not constant in magnitude but going from less to more as the cartridge moves inside and yes is only in one direction and away to be perfect, nothing is in the analog audio world where everything is full of trade-offs and each one of us have several trade-offs to choose in between, it’s way personal. The issue is to stay nearer/truer to the recording. Now, I never seen specific measures on the tracking distortion levels of the skating against the tracking distortion levels of the off-set angle in pivot tonearms. At least by measures we all know at each single groove the level tracking distortion through the Löfgreen alignments against nothing similar with the sckating issue. I use what for me is the second best option to stay nearer/truer to the recording using pivot off-set angle tonearm trying to have some equilibrium with objectivity and at the same time subjectivity. I already said to lewm ( he said I’m wrong about ) that knowing him through years of his posts that he will continues with arguments about because he has no objective answer/measured and proved whay he likes " something " as his VIV that has higher tracking distortions due that has zero off-set angle been a pivoted design. This is my take with him even that he is in total disagreement with me. Today I’m totally satisfied under objective/subjective equilibrium with my choose of that second best alternative to achieve my target. Other audiophiles have different targets and that’s all. At the end what overall plays a main role on each one of us is that can stay satisfied. I’m.
R.
" to negate the skating force .... " In my case I don’t negate its existence and concecuences. I know that the that force makes a " presure " against the cantilever and the cantilever suspension what I never seen in slow motion ( as what I linked from youtube here. ) that the skating force really makes that the whole cantilever spin in to what holds the cantilever. One thing is to presure it and the other one makes to spin around. We have to remember that's not the only force down there and how ,it with the other developed ones. ( Remember cartridge compliance. Way important in this subject. )
R |
and please don't forget the cartridge compliance important role too.
Now, I don't need an explanation how is that that skating force can the stylus tip under that tremendous and infernal pressure at the tip to spin. Common sense says:NO WAY.
Again Make a pressure does not means it spin and as I said compliance plays its role here.
R. |
I'm not looking for a the " perfect " tonearm. The best way that in the begin the cartridgecan pick up as much recorded information from the groove modulations is that the stylus tip stays centered along the LP surface grooved and taking in count that premise/main target the LT is the best solution but not " perfect " and for me the second best are the pivot tonearm with off-set angle using the Löfgreen alignments. So, according to you all those different AS mechanism used by tonearm designers do not helps in any way to that skating developed then all those designers are wrong. What you like in your listen sessions has no matters because is a subjective opinion that proves nothing but that you like it. Be a little objective and please give us the best tonearm over the LT that helps the cartridge to its stylus tip stays centered as I said. Easy for you but not for me. Any one?
R. |
off-set angle between A and B is the same what changes is the overhang. Zenith change I never seen the measured, no problem.
We can’t introduce more variables as zenith, LP off-center, micro waves, macro waves, VTF, VTA, AZ, and the like. Issue is off-set angle/tracking distortion levels, please concentrate on it. Now if yu want that we know that you are a " genius " ok: you are a " genius ", done.
R.
R. |
Important issue is stylus tip angle. Now, Löfgreen A to B alignment amkes almost no significant tracking distortion level modification ( only changes where the levels change between null points. ) and still lower than no-offset angle tonearm designs that’s the issue here. The issue is not to look at each post wich " word " you can " attack " but which made a way significant difference between off-set and non-offset angle tonearm designs.
R. |
Dear @richardkrebs : For me the main issue it’s not if we can see that the cantilever move to the rigth side ( the tonearm ASmechanism helps a little gainst that " rigth side " magnitude. ) the main issue for me is if the stylus tip is in the grooves angle tha Löfgreen alignments measured all over the grooved LP surface: Next link we can appreciate what happens down there during play proccess: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYE67fVny4c
against the stylus tip grooves ridding friction developed huge forces the skating seems to me can't change the measured tracking angle all over the LP surface .
R. |
Dear @lewm : Seems to me that you " die for " the skating force and nothing wrong with that.
Now, LT tonearms appeared for one main critical reason ( where skate develoved was not in that " equation ". ) that was and is that the mounted cartridge on it rides the LP grooves surface in "exactly " the same way that that LP recording was under the cutting head machine this is LT. Audiophiles, me including, bougth the LT ( still today do. ) designs for that main critical reason and no one said or say: " I’m buy because no skating ", no one cares about because this is only an additional side LT tonearm benefit.
In the other side almost all the off-set angle pivot tonearms come with some kind of anti-skating mechanism that in some way or the other has the AS under " control " and no not " perfect " but those kind of designers try to put at minimum. So, all overhang tonearm designs with Löfgreen alignments set-up are ( no matter what ) the second best " road " behind the LT and not the underhung that you like it or not is far away from there . The overhang tonearm designs are not with ZERO ( 0 ) AS, designers take care about in the best each one of them can and again not " perfect "..
R.
|
Dear @reimarc : Well , I will no drink to that and let me explain what I posted.
" how do you actually know what exactly is encoded in the LP grove? Unless you have the master tape side by side. "
I never posted that kind of statement what I posted is that my target is to stay nearer/truer to the recording and I posted too that to reach or been close to that target weneed that each kind of system developed distortions most be at minimum.
My take in whole audio MUSIC reproduction to have top MUSIC enjoyment is to try to have an equilibrium between your classic dogma 100% subjectivity that ( you repeated ( some way or the other ) in your answer to me ) and objectivity that in this thread issue demands that the stylus tip be centered in the groove modulations. In my target I reached it using that equilibrium when for one side objectivity tells that any one of us must use LT tonearms and I did it and through the time ( i owned at least 3 different LT and over 15 pivoted tonearms and over 150 any kind of cartridges with different cartridge motors andat least 7 different TTs ) my subjectivity ( equilibrium ) tells me that I had to change to pivot alternative to reach the rigth bass range and to do this the second best alternative was and is use the Löfgreen alignments that puts that stylus tip nearer to what the LT does: NO MATTER WHAT. The underhung just has not that "perfect "equilibrium, no it's not rocket science only common sense andnoIdon`t need those master tapes and if you or any one makes what me neither will need. Yes, from my statements you are far away from the recording and overall wrong and not because I say so but because almost all of you have not looking for that way demanding equilibrium.
R.
|
Dear @dogberry : No, I’m not suggesting nothing like that but only my mistake ( sorry. ) and misunderstood for your statement posted:
" I’m half regretting waking up this thread, especially as some find it hard to be civil. " I really don't care ( in good shape ) about your experiment, perhaps only for that " crime " adding that third hole to a SME tonearm I posted in this thread that once I tested with my SAEC 8000. Were other " times " in my audio life and I did it even with out the existence of underhung tonearm designs. R.
R. |
Dear @reimarc @lewm and friends: " I think the complete acoustic decoupling by the fluid bed plays an important role here....."
Way important along the tonearm arm wand O rings to tame additional resonances/distortions.. Well, in this thread I posted similar statements about self tonearm damping importance in the VIV but till today only you as an owner took in count the tonearm critical importance of that damping. In the past and in several other threads about different tonearms designs I almost always posted exactly what you said and that I said too even in this post. For me your damping tonearm statements speaks who you are, good.
In the other side: " I strongly recommend to forget historic dogma in this case and let your ears decide,.." well, for me and my targets that " let your ears decide " is the real " historic dogma " touted by vintage and today reviewers and audio manufacturers.
Now,I’m not against your dogma and the Löfgreen alignments is not in any way an " historic dogma " , all depends of each one of us MUSIC reproduction targets in our room/system and I let or I think that I left very clear my main room/system ( maybe I did not or my explanation in that latest post was not clear . ) target where no matter what the VIV can’t help me ( unfortunatelly ) to stay truer/nearer to the recording. Look, my target is that the cartridges can pick-up as much information from the groove LP modulations as it can due that that MUSIC information is what stays in the whole recording proccess. To reach those first target is that the cartridge stylus reads each single groove modulation in centered position in that groove. In theory you can reach that only through a LT tonearm design and through the years the second best way ( nearer tracking angle to that centered stylus position. AS nearer the best as away the worse. ) to reach that target is using a pivot tonearm through Löfgreen alignments ( nearer centered stylus groove position. ). All these are facts with measurements and the like.Here my ears not decide,common sense tells me ( and I think almost no one here can’t prove I’m just wrong.) is the rigth way to reach my main TARGET. Different audiophile targets could means different alternatives. In all these LP play system proccess Accuracy is way important to mantain every developed single kind of distortion system source at minimum, not an easy task. R.
|
Dear @dover and friends : " if accurate alignment is your primary goal, ", well I don’t know other audiophiles but accurated alignment is the first step of other important steps in the whole cartridge/tonearm set-up that can puts me nearer/truer to the recording. Why choosed I a different first step other than the one that gives zero tracking distortion as the LT tonearms?, mainly because does not exist the perfect tonearm and through my several first hand experiences with LT that I owned it made everything fine but the low bass. So I choosed my trade-off in benefit of whole MUSIC sound and choosed and never came back to the pivot tonearms using as first set up step the Löfgren alignments and let explain my sense/mind about and all steps down there to be nearer to the recording ( the Löfgreen alignments are the ones to zero tracking error/distortion to the LT designs: are the ones that puts the cartrudge stylus nearer to groove modulations tangentially. VIV is way way off that main target no matter what. ): After the Löfgreen alignment set up we have to fine tune that alignment along other critical set up parameters as: VTF/VTA/SRA/AZ/AS/ZENT and the like. All those steps puts me nearer and truer to the recording that’s my main MUSIC reproduction target in my room/system. The VIV puts any audiophile far away from the recording but any one has different room/system targets.
Btw: " aware of any negative comments on underhung tonearms voiced by either M Kelly or Dave Garretson ", sorry lew but I never posted that you need to read again why I mentioned to those gentlemans. That " vitriol " you posted is not vitriol but and opinion against your several times " insult " to LÖFgreen that obviously for you and dogberry is just ok and not for me. Re-read my post about.
R.
|
Dear @theophile : No, he does not wrote that way but looks as he implicate that and many other things. Go figure and in good shape with lewm:
this is not the first time that he made a critic against an analog audio world icon of the Löfgreen caliber, he made it ( against Löfgreen ) at least over 5-6 times in Agon different threads when in no other internet audio forum some one different gentleman posted something similar not even reviewers or gentlemans as bAERWALD, sTEVENSON, Bauer, Pisha whom made it its own alignment calculations that at the end mathematicaly are similar to the Löfgreen alignments where no one of them never made a critic to any of the 90+ Löfgreen white papers pages. Not only that but 50+ tonearms designers/manufacturers choice/reference was and is Löfgreen alignments. I know for sure that almost all of us are amateur audiophiles with out the scientist levels of Löfgreen. I know that audiophiles with a huge high technical knowledge levels than me as B.Ellison or M.Kelly or D.Garretson and other never made that kind of critic that’s ( for me ) at the border of insult.
In the other side, the "stupid " nayseyers as me only say that the VIV tonearm has higher tracking distortions that at the same time develops higher THD and IMD against other normal pivoted tonearms with offset-angle. I’m not touching thesubjective facts because every one likes what they likes I’m only refering to objective facts where the VIV has not lower tracking distortion levels or at least the VIV designer never proved or any other audiophile with facts and away from that : " I like it ". because this is not the issue. Theophile so we can stay calm using Löfgreen alignments. Don't worry.
R.
|
Dear @wrm57 : " If distortion be the food of vinyl, play on! "
Exactly and nothing wrong with that. It's for almost all our audio life what we are acustomen to enjoy.
My point is only, try not add more distortions that the ones you can't avoid in the analog medium.
R. |
@lewm I read what you posted and does not exist any " mantra ". You can run-out/away of the facts and if you don't want to accept the fact that you like added high distortions with that tonearm is up to you and your privilege. No mantra here but just reality and nothing wrong with that.
Enough. R.
|
Dear @lewm : No, I'm not angry and never with you. Look, the " I like " needs no explanation that can makes common sense to other audiophiles and maybe that's why you have not " none " to share.
Now, all the VIV owners are enjoying and " discovering " a new distortion added stage and that's all.
J.Ellison is rigth we analog lovers like distortions, nothing wrong with that.
What I don't like is than been aware that something is adding high distortions buy and listen to that audio item. I don't like added distortions My target is to stay nearer to the recording.
R. |
@lewm : " is to seek an explanation for observations that run contrary to one’s cherished beliefs, "
ill today you don't give any explanations only: bla, bla, bla,. Seriously where are those explanations that you touted?.
R. |
Dear @lewm : First I don't need another tonearm, second I don't need it to own the VIV to have some kind of explanation(s). Your " I like it " along all the other owners is not really an issue but your observations as the other owners about just told me ( common sense ) that levels over 10% of THD in a room system has not really a discernible " problem ". As a fact speakers several times goes higher than 10% and in the vintage years tube electronics were just " there " and everybody happy.
All those just told me too that we are not measuring the rigth paRAMETERS FOR THE TONEARM HIGH CARTRIDGE ERROR DISTORTION LEVELS.
We are accustomed for the inherent way high " natural " tracking distortion that we can't avoid and we " like it " so another kind of tracking distortion is welcomed for you and the other owners and I'm still posting here looking for your explanations because was you who posted here about. @mijostyn , no matters what the tonearm design ( no matters which kind of design. ) that tonearm can't makes to avoid the inherent tracking distortion in the analog playback media. Not only you but I'm sure no one really can tell in very precise way a tonearm with 0° tracking error against other tonearm with 1.3° tracking error. NO ONE ( everything the same ).
R. |
Dear @lewm : Seems to me that you already gave up looking that a wrong design sounds good other that the " normal ": I like it. Nothing wrong with that.
In other thread ( Dava cartridge ) you posted something about other internet forym that the arguments there always is " I like it ":
""I wouldn't take WBF too seriously, except to say that some of those guys actually do own the megabuck gear that they discuss........ But beware of subconscious bias, which is inevitable and only human. "
Well, now you will be welcomed down there. Just kidding.
R. |
well the RS Labs is an almost vintage tonearm against the Yamaha and in those all years audiophiles can change its mind due that were learning in several audio issues almost every day.
@mijostyn , the whole fun behind vinyl is just that a lot of fun, several and different issues/alternatives/ste up parameters/ sevral different cartridges/ the preserve cleaning proccess. It's almost a " religion " all those characteristics and several more, always trying to up-grade/up-date here and there to improve quality reproduction and the other side as you mentioned is that several analog lovers as we are own thousands of LP's.
R. |
Btw, I know for sure that you as @mijostyn , me and some other gentlemans just do not like to add distortions in any way and nowhere our room/systems.
I posted several times and I 'm sure that at least one time you read what I posted:
" the name of the MUSIC/sound is to put at minimum any kind of distortons developed by our room/system: this is my main target that even what I posted several times too: nearer to the recording target.
R. |
@lewm and dear friends: Maybe many VIV owners not even who is J.Ellison and they need to find out that information.
Now, . Ellison posted in your link about the underhung Yamaha yonearm in the thread you started there, so it's an answer that he gave to you:
" The Yamaha straight arm is absurd. "
He posted too something that I posted several time about my personal targets:
" I don't really care what it sounds like. I care only how it measures.
His last statement/sentence is my target but all what he said is just a true fact for people as mijos or me.
An his last post in that thread in different words is something I already posted here and from year now in several threads:
" I firmly believe that the people who prefer vinyl also prefer distortion.
Btw, that's why we " say " ( not me ) that vinyl has superiority to digital when it's theother way around. No pun intented.
lew, I really appreciated your link because that gentleman confirmed several of my posted believes in this forum.
R.
|
@lewm, well both of us are in some way " closed mine " because if I need to listen VIV youuuuu need to develop a way better tests proccess. When do you start to do it?
I'm not willing to buy a VIV first because I don't need a tonear my self design is very good but I woned over 20 tonearm and still own a good number and second because my common sense says so and my curiosity level is way lower that yours mine is ZERO.
R. |
@lewm : It's way " pity " ( for say the least ) that all the other owners that already posted in this thread just let you ALONE in the discussion. My take for that is that all them do not care if the design is totally wrong but that they like it as you but exist a " but ": the difference between you and all them is that you are the only that like it but even that you are looking why a wrong design like it. Yoi are chasing " explanations " as the ones you posted and that rpoves nothing in favor of what you are looking for.
Again, instead to " lost " some timie posting here use that time to develop a sure/true test overall proccess as I did it 20+ years ago
Lew, how can you explain it that two audiophiles as José and I could designed the Essential 3150 unit is high quality reproduction levels with out resources as true audio electronics manufacturers. Because José and I are only two people appasinated with MUSIC and MUSIC reproduction at home and not in the audio market, this was at " random "? Yes, technically José is very good but it's not enough to make the design because that design must be voiced in high resolution rooms/systems and that voicing mainly belongs to me. The developed tests proccess permited us to choose between diferent manufacturer transistor models/resistors/capacitors/ and the like ( obviously that were several kind of measurements on all those ) and after test the " rigth " parts the need it to beeen assembled on the boards and after that to make " thousands " of listening tests in different room/systems. With out that proccess we just can't made it with that quality levels. But after the Essential 3150 came the Essential 3160 that you own ( so you know exactly what I'm talking about. ) and rigth now ( with out be conceited ) the Essential 3180 that beats the 3160 and almost other unit in the today phonolinepreamp market and a serious challenge for any today market unit. You name it and can be sure that overall can't beats the Essential 3180.
That's why I insiste in your proccess developing with or with out the VIV subject.
R. |
" you cannot add anything, because we know already about its theoretical shortcomings. " That theorethical is a fact and I posted that I was looking for an explanation why the audiophiles like t and that explanation that VIV owners can’t do the necessary " autopsy " as a " forensic " does due that no one of you have that kind of " tree " whole proccess tests. So, no one can’t find out that " why " if does not has that critical test proccess and that’s why you have not explanation about till today.
My advise is that you start to develop that test proccess and then maybe you can have your explanation not before. At the ned there is no plausible explanation due that no one can prove that does not exist that tracking additional distortions. You took the VIV flag and for your posts seems to me that you are even to " die for that flag ", well it's you.
R. |
@lewm : Thank's to share your proccess that's way different from mine, I did my test comparison almost the same way than you due that one time I had 10 tonearms/cartridges operating in my system but those kind of test proccess was so many years ago that I can't remember for sure when I left to dii it.
My " tree " instead " forest " test proccess is a way simple and I don't need any other tool than the ears because when you know exactly what to look for the ears are the best tool under the audio world and way faster than the normal " forest " procces almost all audiophiles use. I remember that first time at A.Porter time I took no more than 10 minutes to note a system fault and another 10 minutes to fixed and A.Porter agree on that " fixed ". In Idaho I was seated " against " MBL speakers, Technics SP-10MK3, Schroeder tonearm, tube amps by the great regarded designer that unfortunatelly pass away and that at this moment can't remember his name and the cartridge was the SS Straing Gauge and the owner had the LP I need it and he did it and my rigth first impression ( first 5 minutes. ) was a truly Impressive but then I ask that gentleman that in that LP I need to listen a specific track and after listened I was totally sure that those HF were wrong: all these in 15 minutes and over the time all SG owners confirmed what I knew before they. After half hour he changed cartridge to listen the Lyra Olympos and thigs changed for the better through the Essential 3160. The system owner was deep founded with the SG and I try don't insist in other way but have some fun just listening MUSIC. Btw, I listening for the first time a Rockport TT an Acapella top speakers with F.Crowder that I named. Lew I did and do not try in anyway to " disparaging " you . I was almost sure and that's why I ask you to share your proccess that that was your proccess. When I said that's not your fault I posted that not to be condescend with you because I know I'm not condescend with no body: this is not the way I'm and sorry for that: I'm straigth/direct no matters what. In my proccess I'm not looking for what sounds good or excellent but the other way around: look for specific " recording errors " in specific LP tracks. With my " trees " I can in no more than 1 hour prove/detect that the VIV is wrong no matter what and with out need to measure nothing. That is not my capacity but the whole test proccess capacities. I'm not conceited in anyway and that's why I posted audiophiles names/places and no my ears are no better than yours but just " truer " thank's to the proccess estrategy.
R.
|
Dear @lewm : I never said you are not a MUSIC lover and if you understand that was only a bad explanation for my part but was not my attitude because I know for sire that as me you are first than all a MUSIC lover. Apologize for that.
Now, every one has a " test proccess " my developed test proccess is not listening to the " forest " because as a whole we just are " lost " very easy, what I’m looking in that " forest " ( example ) is one specific " tree " in one or more of the LP tracks used in the test proccess where I know that " tree " better as the fingers of my hand. I have different trees depending what I want to test/to look for. I’m not looking for what is sounds in any LP very good because this is the " forest " and we can easy lost in there. You can talk with F.Crowder who not only has a top top room/system but from some years now is a professional reviewer, I was at his place twice and from the first time ( with the Essential 3150 ) I ask him for 2-3 LPs and fortunatelly he owned and after that and even the high quality system I gave him an opinion of some anomaly that I listen on that system and that he till that moment did not take in count to fix it. Same happens at A.Porter place ( 3150 too ) where with one of my LP tracks not one but twice detected some anomalies in his top room/system, first listening he and me and the second time with other 6 audiophiles including a Dagogo reviewer and in that session I was the only that detect a deficient SPL in one system channel I can give you a lot more examples with gentlemans of that caliber and in all cases were my first listening session with that room/system that before were unknow for me. Other places that I remember because I meet fabolous gentlemans was in San Diego as Idaho too and Georgi and if they are still Agoners could attest what I’m posting here. Now, detected I those anomalies because I’m a golden ears audiophile? NO far away from there, I detected because I know exactly what to look for I was looking for that tree and not the " forest " at random and that’s all.
My first hand experiences for overall 20 years developing my test proccess ( many times thise LP tracks appeared at random and from there I choosed. ) makes me to learn a lot and makes me to fix that test " tree " strategy because is more easy to look for a tiny/small specific part that look at random in the forest for that unknow tree.
Btw, I posted 4-5 times in the forum that I owned the RS A-1 and perhaps I was one of the first Agoners to do it. I owned around 3 months and sold. More or less that’s what I do. Can I ask which is your test whole proccess or any one of Agoners in this thread ? We all must be always willing to learn from every member even that I know that I don’t like almost no body here and obviously no bo dy in wbf and other forums. Even that what I post is always trying to help in some way even if what the gentlemans read could teeel for them I’m " insulting " them, this is never my attitude but help.
R.
|
@lewm : He has or posted nothing that needs " defend " it. He, as some of us, is spot on the whole issue.
Your latest posts seems to me that posted to justify in some way that you are satisfied with the wrong VIV tonearm but due that you like it you don't need to justify nothing to others but only maybe to you.
Again, the issue to have a self developed test/comparison " bullet proof " whole proccess is critical to detect any errors elsewhere and your proccess showed is not good enough to detect what is obvious and same for the other owners. I know that almost no one cares about that test proccess but it's critical for any gentleman that think is a MUSIC lover an audiophile.
With out that test proved proccess you don't know what to look for, so you can't detect even what's obvious and is not your culprit but that proccess you have.
R. |
Dear @intactaudio and friends: The link you posted shows only that it’s the first time that that distortion was measured. Rigth from the begin of the digital medium/CD almost all started to talk about the CD jitter and almost at the same time some of us started too to speak of anlog tracking jitter and not only that but between other audiophiles I started too to post several times through the years that trtuose cartridge ridding road named " Hymalaya Mountains " where the jitter and the Himalaya we just can’t avoid in any way: it’s main part of the LP/cartridge imperfections. Never was measured but it’s almost useless when not only each LP but each LP track measures different.
Well, those truly high distortions that are part of the " game " never were detected by us are just added colorations that we all like and that we can’t avoid.
The cartridge/tonearm alignments is something different that obviously does not measures those, the alignment only measures the additional tracking distortions as an effect in pivoted non LT tonearms and that’s why exist that overhag and offset angle. NO the alignments were not calculated to help with other issues as the off-centered cartridge stylus/cantilever because that responsability is of the cartridge manufacturers that need to way improve its QC. Around 20 years ago I started to develop a " trusty " comparison whole proccess tests that through those years was up-graded/up-dated several times where I always use the same LP tracks that I know better than the fingers of my hands and I don’t use all the track because depending of what I’m testing msometimes I listen 20 seconds on one track and the like. That proccess permits me to know what to look for and that’s why I can detect that overhang or offset-angle at some pointand some SPL. With out know what to look for detectionof those kind of distortions is to difficult to do it.
Btw, sometimes the alignment tracking distortions are developed at lower SPL that the one need it to detect it.
So all the satisfied VIV owners are " deaft " , ceratinly not and it’s not that their room/system has a poor level resolution. No, my take is that each one of them comparison proccess is not good enough to detect those alignment developed distortions. That’s all.
Btw, @lewm , the gentleman that did the analysis in your link posted there:
" Any arm not being designed according to one of these two approaches, produces higher tracking distortion than necessary and should be disregarded. ""
Overall is an extreme complex issue.
R. |
Dear @intactaudio : You don’t get it my point or I can’t explain it in the rigth wat but your charts goes exactly on what I listening during those yesterday tests: the overhang change/error produce a kind of distortion that’s detected when the alone " error " in the offset angle not only is lower but just can’t detect it in easy way. This is my issue.
In the other side, in this thread I posted that the angular error is only a part of the whole subject because a tonearm is a lot more than tha and I posted about that well damped VIV pivot bearing and its arm wand O rings and the like. Change in overhang alone is truly sensible and audible, we can see that a tiny difference around only 0.4mm between Löfgren A and Löfgren B alignments that tracking distortion goes lower in the B alignment and both A and B alignments have the same offset angle.
Yes, even if we have the best tools to make the cartridge/tonearm set up the perfect set updoes not exist because LP groove after groove surface is not totally flat but full of waves and micro-waves where the stylus tip it’s looking different VTA almost at each groove. I posted several times about as I posted that changes in VTF/VTA/AZ and the like change the original set up, it’s the reality of the imperfection of analog as is the fact that even top cartridges comes with no perfectly centered stylus tip at the cantilever even sometimes comes with not centered cantilever. Btw, here I don’t mentioned that lewm does not listen the high distortions developed by the VIV ( because " not golden ears " ) or that his system has not the resolution to do it but I posted the other way around and don’t diminish him or his system in anyway. I have respect for lewm, I know who he is. Every one of us know about those " nice distortions " but no one but the VIV owners experienced a totally NEW kind of " nice distortions " ( lewm I posted that it’s need it to look at what sort of distortion as you said but with my words ) and almost all know that our ears are not the best " tool " to detect not only that kind of distortion but several others because during LP playback what we are listening and that we like it’s totally full of distortions.
No one here is discovering the " black thread ". Still my question abou the stylus shape is On and with out answer from you .
R.
@lewm : " Until then, your complete conviction that you alone are possessed of the "truth" rings hollow to me. Is your close-minded attitude any better than the behavior of the AHEE that you so revile? " You are who think that because here for what I posted tells you that I’m not a close-mind but the other way around. What you could think is only that what you think but not what is my attitude on the whole subject . I don’t remember that in this thread you mentioned or accepted that are listening added unique kind of distortions by that high tonearm offset angle and : Are you saying I’m close-mind? .
Btw, I was writing my post when you already posted that link that I don't read yet.
|
Dear @drbarney1 : You are totally rigth: " makes the " cure " only worse ".
But even that huge VIV offset angle the issue is that has no " detectable " listen distortions but the other way around:
" Suffice to say that each of the 3 cartridges sounds better in the Viv than it has in either of two other well regarded conventional overhung pivoted tonearms. The characteristic sound is "vivid", as the name suggests........., coherent (I detect absolutely no negative effect of the TAE at outer or inner grooves), and undistorted. I think that individual instruments in large orchestral pieces are more easily appreciated. Sound stage is open and spacious. Sense of depth is as good as I ever heard, if not better..." I already posted that the election of this VIV tonearm is a Personal Choice. I already posted several times through several years: no one can questioning ( negative ) any other gentleman for what he or I like, because that's what I like no matters what.
The pity issue in the overall VIV subject is that ours ears/brain is truly poor to detect the " nice " VIV developed distortions.
R.
|
Dear @intactaudio : Why the stylus shape can affect the alignment?
Linear offset is the same always in both Löfgren A and B alignments if we don’t change the must inner groove and must outer grove distances. If you have a cartridge /tonearm set up for Löfgren A alignment and by a mistake ( as happened to me twice times. ) you are 2mm-3mm forward against the correct overhang sooner or latter and through listening you will " catch " that something is not running well with that overall cartridge set up and it is because you are out of the original calculated linear offset.
I had at least twice times first hand experiences with and at least coincide with the Löfgren statement. What have you on hand and from where say that zenith is more important than overhang: how much more important? could you share your specific first hand experiences on the whole issue? and remember that the VIV way high angular offset has no " audible distortions ". It's what their owners shared everywhere.
Well, something to share with you is that I just finished my listening tests making on purpose a 2mm overhang error and other test changing only ( what more or less permits the headshell ) the angular offset. I think you need to do it.
Still the question about the stylus tip shape stays to you.
R. |
Dear friends: I forgot to post on the protractor manufacturers that speak of Stevenson alignment that ( as with Lögren ) Stevenson alignment does not exist but Stevenson A and Stevenson B and no one of those manufacturers an even tonearm manufactursrs made any explanation about..
@lewm , agree with you but unfortunatelly there no exist that " ideal ".
Next information on alignment is important due that came from Löfgren him self:
" “From the shape and location of the curves, it results that the largest distortion risk occurs when the overhang is not correctly set for the linear offset. On the other hand, the angular offset itself is not so critical”
R. |
Dear friends: Even that lewm posted that it's not the main subject in the thread and yes it's not however I consider that's important for each one audiophile knowledge levels and especially because in this thread we are talking of tonearm/cartridge alignment, what this means and differences against ( mainly ) Löfgren A or B alignments. Several times I posted about " corrupted " AHEE and here in the kind of alignments the " corrupted " word is the precise one because " invent " alignment or false alignment information is a kind of corruption. Examples of professional tonearm/cartridge protractor manufacturers: Dr. Feickert site speaks of Löfgren, Baerwald and Stevenson alignments Wally: speaks of Löfgren and Baerwald. J.Ellison calculator speaks the same.
In both cases they " invented " a new alignment because Löfgren alignment just does not exist. What exist is Löfgren A and Löfgren B Additional they give an " honor " to Baerwald when he was not involved side by side with Löfgren in 1938 developed alignments equations.
I know not no body cares about but I do because in " theory " those " professional " manufacturers at least should have the responsability to share the rigth information to his customers that are all of us However what they are showing or trying we learn is corrupted information even if they do not did it on purpose.
For me both sites need some kind of explanatio for audiophiles can have first hand professional and true information.
Well, that's my take.
R.
Btw, only VE calculator named Löfgren A instead that Baerwald and obviously speaks of Löfgren B.
|
Dear @lewm : Any one can argue about because it's a way incomplete ideal tonearm description that I'm not willing to " take " this time. In the other side what you posted: " the stylus should always ride right down the middle of the groove. " that could not happens not only in LT but pivot LT tonearms due that the tremendous forces generated during stylus tip ridding modulations impedes that groove after groove the tip stays just centered. As a fact the stylus tip is not always in touch with the LP grooved surface. Anyway, I assume that you are not still ready to share your final veredict of what you are experienced. Yes, listening time is important in that issue.
R. |
Dear friends: Maybe some of you already experienced that we did some mistakes when were doing the cartridge alignment with either Löfgren A or B. Well, I did it like 2-3 times with out take in count my alignment errors that were in the overhang: 2-3mm longer or shorter. I remember that even that tracking distortion level goes up that existed not mistracking or any kind of distortion that I could detect and was till the second day listening sessions when I " feel " that something was not exactly as I was accustom too. The error colorations was " good " colorations and remember that at least with one of the times the high frequency reproduction was" better " than before but that " better " was only added distortons.
It’s not easy to detect what we are missing when errors goes up, at least not in one listening session and with out knowing that exist an alignment error.. What I detected at the second day was that the MUSIC rhythm/beat was different and not good enough as with the correct alignment.
Any one of you can do it on purpose as a test and listen what happens in your room/system and what can detect . As we know different kind of distortion levels can like us : sometimes are very " nice distortions " and like us and let that way. Well, I like that my mind stay calm, so I try to avoid higher any kind of added distortion or lost signal information.
R. |
@lewm : Please don’t misunderstood my words. I posted that I’m trying to understand/figure out or look a " rational " explanation to know why you like it, not other gentlemans but you. I’m not trying to diminish your self capacities or your system, I really trust in you and that’s why I’m following posting in the thread At this moment my take is simple: the cartridge does not knows what it’s tracking does not knows ( and does not cares. ) about that angle " error ". What is doing is just tracking the LPs groove modulations and that it’s doing with no audible distortions. Audiophiles like me are questioning that high tracking angle error and yes it’s a high angle error against an Löfgren A/B alignment but here we have a way different kind of alignment that necessary will produce a special/different kind of quality sound levels a sound NEW for you and other VIV owners. So you are listen to a total NEW experience ( I could say new " LPs " ) and I believe you when you said that like you. New LPs because it's your first time to listen those modulations with different angle stylus tip tracking as what you and many of us are accustomed to listen our LPs. That different TAE in the VIV is big ( vs normal alignments. ) but seems not big enough to cause mistracking or audible distortions, the cartridge tracking capacities ( yours and others. ) have no problem to track almost all LP’s groove modulations mounted in the VIV. Yes still untruer to the recording but if we have not audible higher tracking distortions and or you don't detect yet that are " missing " tiny kind of signal recorded information then ( as alwaYS ) IS A PERSONAL CHOICE. Could be a good thing to calculate the VIV tracking distortion levels.
In this alignment subject I'm orthodox/dogmatic due that my main target is to stay truer to the recording, so till today no VIV for me. If I want it to " improve "/change the LPs colorations I'm accustom too then I will follow the @mijostyn example/experience adding a digital processor/Eq. to my system that I'm not yet willing to do it.
R.
|
@lewm : It is totally obvous for any audiophile that that " special "/different sound quality is due to tonearm/cartridge big angle error over the LP groove modulations.
I mentioned that bearing low tonearm friction only because the designer says it's one of his main targets but for me that he said that is not totally trust information but untrusty one when he does not shows the tonearm measured bearing friction and due that he only " talk and talk " permit me to think that maybe he never measured and only a good " desire ". Anyway, the real fact is that you like that special sound ( as you named. ) as many other owners even that the reproduction is " untruer " to the recording in comparison with a normal tonearm.
R. |
Dear @lewm : My toughts about that headshell and damping issues are trying to understand why with that calculated ( wbf ) " huge " angle error you like it. So with the usual headshell and Löfgren A/B real alignment a comparison could tell us or put some " light " why you and other audiophiles like it. With out this kind of comparison we just almost never know for sure. Common sense tells me that with a normal alignment will like you even more and then the overall VIV damping could be what helps a lot for better quality performance. I think that when you have the time can be interesting wich changes in the sound makes with out O rings, here too common sense says will be a quality changes and the one that can tell us is you.
Well, only my thoughts, R. |
@lewm : Do you tested the tonearm with out O rings ? So, for your last post means that there is no way to turn the cartridge in the tonearm headshell. Sometimes and depending of the headshell the cartridge can turn just a little but permits it but not with the VIV.
R. |
Dear @lewm : " main goal was lowest possible friction. Hence the pivot floating on an oil bath. " So,what you are experienced with is that the arm wand is " truly free " to make sudden horizontal/vertical movements with even lower true unipivot friction and with out the unipivot side effects? That is that the tonearm hast the fast controled response ( to any other tonearm you own or experienced.) to what the cartridge modulation rides ask for during playback?
In the other side that oil floating bearing with " no instability " works as whole tonearm damping other than the O rings and that kind of damping by my first hand experiences Audiogon Discussion Forum has the capacity and could " kills " almost any resonance/distortion developed by cartridge/tonearmTT that open sound presentation to a new/different " flavor " of what you are listening That " kills " resonances/distortions could means a clean and pristine sound color. I don't know if the tonearm could permit it but should be interesting to mount the cartridge with Löfgren A/B or nearer to it and listen it. Using damping in the " right "/adequated way can makes " magic " especially in this tonearm/cartridge application. Resonances/distortions are the enemy to beat it and damping is one way in tha direction.
R. R. |
" Likely you cannot either,..." That issue has no priority inside my MUSIC sound reproduction ( I mean that that comparison because TAE is inside the priority due to its direct relationship during cartridge groove modulations rides. ), so sincerely I don’t really care to much about that question but for all what I posted the answer is obvious. Which your answer/opinion to your question. Maybe obvious too: " None of us can have an opinion ..."
" in which case please avoid insulting me. " I did not insult you, I only posted a different main targets that just are different from yours.
R. |
Dear @dogberry : "" The question that should be central to all of this is which is the greater sin: TAE or added anti-skate force? ""
Perhaps for you and other gentlemans that could think like you because for me it’s ( as always ) what is right or wrong and the why’s about. Your question came with out facts/why’s. The main issue/subject for any cartridge/pivoted tonearm/LT is to pick up " all " the recorded audio signal in those LP groove modulations. That means that before any other questions it need it to pick up that signal as nearer is posible and after that comes several set up parameters as : SRA, VTA, AZ, AS, Zenith , ideal resonance FR and the like.
As you I can ask: which is more important AS or VTA or tonearm damping or aluminum vs boron cantilevers or kind of tonearm bearing or tonearm build materials, ? ? ? Analog is not as " easy " as your question, never is. Full of imperfections that when you want to fix one of those imperfections you " touch " almost all other in a bad way. Please use common sense about.
R.
|
